You seem to have a very narrow view of science. According to your view, the laws of themodynamics are not science. After all, they rely on interpretation and not accumulation of data. Or do you honestly believe that it is possible to observe temperature or heat without making interpretations? All you can observe without interpretation is that the liquid level rises in the tube you claim to be using to measure the temperature. It is interpretation to say that there's some property called temperature that results in the rise of the liquid. Similarly, it's interpretation to say that there's some type of energy that is transferred from hot to cold bodies which we call heat. All you can observe without interpretation is that if you hold a long, liquid filled tube against a hot body, the liquid level rises and if you hold it against a cold body the liquid level falls. If you allow the two bodies to contact each other, then put the tube against them, the liquid level will be intermediate between the originally observed levels. Anything else is interpretation, and hence not science according to your view.
"According to your view, the laws of themodynamics are not science. After all, they rely on interpretation and not accumulation of data."
The interpretation arises from phenomena which are observable, repeatable and verifiable because they are phenomena which occur in the here and now in the same timeframe that the observer exists in.
We cannot travel back in time to observe the transition from a world without life to a world with life, or the point at which a new species appeared, and therefore all the evidence that we can ever hope to have will be circumstantial and will be left-overs from a timeframe which the observer can never be a part of.
Both "evolution" and "creation" are theories which relate to events which happened in a different timeframe than which the observer exists in. Consequently there is a fundamental difference to your citation of experiments which are consistently repeatable and verifiable.